MPAA Modification

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by wormraper

last time I went to films with my parents was about 8. didn't go for a while then in highschool (about 14) we started going all the time. if we wanted to get into an r-rated flick we just did the standard "buy a ticket for a lower rated film and sneak into the r-rated one".

yeah, we all have done that (buy a fake ticket because we could not get into the film we wanted the same way I am sure we all had fake IDs to get booz).

Also an R rating does not restrict a film for a kid with a parent present that would be the higher NC-17 rating. That is why I asked when was the last time you went with a parent. Should a 7 year old be there with his parent? I don't think so but a 16 year old probably won't go see it with a parent but might try with some other adult (older sibling/friend)

as to your argument. The ratings groups in each country are run separately. that's why Canada actual has legal implications. here in the U.S. the MPAA has no legal standing and is only an advisory committee. unofficially they have sway but legally the rating system is nothing but a guideline or informatory rating. Basically each's country's rating systems are different and have different implications. in the U.S. and many other countries their ratings systems don't have any legal implications (shouldn't in my opinion)

and as to your last statement. the reason for Ratings are to inform you of the level on content. they are their so you know what you're getting into, nothing more

But you miss the point, as a kid did you really care if it was R or G or anything else (except for possibly ,making it hard for you to see it)? my guess is no. If it was a film you wanted to see you just saw it, the ratings are there so that the parents can have some idea of what their kid is supposedly going to see and if it is appropriate for them. And the reason it exists as is in the US is that the industry decided to self-regulate and be proactive. If theatre operators en-mass said "screw ratings we will let anyone in" or the MPAA would not have come up with them at all, those parents that convinced the theatre owners and MPAA that they should have ratings would have probably forced the government into passing a law for it.

So I don't see a difference between self-regulating (like in the US) and a law (like here in Quebec).

[ScarredLungs]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

yeah, we all have done that (buy a fake ticket because we could not get into the film we wanted the same way I am sure we all had fake IDs to get booz).

Nope, never did either of those.

Originally Posted by Anthony P

maybe, but I don't think so, I think it needs to be easy and simple. Here films get a rating and possibly advisories
"Not suitable for young children," "Vulgar language," "Violence," and "Explicit sexuality."

but as far as I know people don't take the time to go through them. That is why I think it needs to be simple. If you read my post you would see that I agreed with you but I think out of 10 just gets overly complicated. I think having a global rating (easy for theaters) and subdivisions for each aspect (Language, violence/gore, sex/nudity, theme) makes a bit more sense. Let me ask you this, you have language as one of them, explain to me what 0,1,2....10 would mean for language, then imagine how complicated it gets for rating the films and as a parent to know what is the difference between 6,8,6 and 7,7,6 or 6,7,7 or 7,8,5.... that is why I thought using the same divisions we have now (the 4-5 ) would be simpler while showing why it got that rating.

I understand what you are saying and that is a good point. I would be happy with something that simple, as long as there was a detailed place online that I could find the "content" information. No matter what rating is in use, it will be considered subjective. Everyone has different ideas/beliefs/morals and that is fine. The rating system should not push one set of beliefs more then another, that is not it's job. Its job is to inform about movie content. I like keeping it simple. By having the content available, (online per se) anyone one would be able to make informed decisions if they deem the content appropriate for their kids.

[Anthony P]

Of course it is not as simple as count them up. How much is not the same as how many. Note that I did say counted and quantified.

but that quantified was casterated by saying by implying it is objective and especialy since in the sentence it was associated with counted.

Yes, yes everything is subjective. Somewhere, someone will say a live beheading is better than seeing a pair of boobs. You can split hairs here all day long but it's a bit pointless. Any rating system will be flawed but the point is to get info to viewers as to what is in the movie, and how strong is the content.

so now we are getting somewhere.

No I just tend to try and base my opinions on solid evidence. In the case of minors consuming alcohol the subject is not even up for debate. Opinion does not enter in. It is case closed. Consuming alcohol before full brain maturity leads to damage. Of course how much is consumed comes into play.

what solid evidence? if someone drinks way too much it can harm their helth? that can happen at any age. Plus if someone at any age siots way too much on their a$$ watching movies that will have health ramifications as well.

No the point here is; is the activity the minor is engaged in a dangerous activity. Drinking, yes. Watching movie, no. I am not for anarchy but I am wary when someone wants to do something "for the protection of the people" when there is no evidence the people are in danger.

so how is having a sip of beer or a whole beer or a glass of wine for someone that is 20 years old dangerous?

I don't know man, your argument is all over the place. We should restrict viewers at movies, but you take kids to see Saw. We should restrict based on Theme and subject matter when there is no way to fairly do so. I'm not sure how what you propose is better the finger to the wind way it is done now. I just agree with the folks that are trying to level the playing field when it comes to ratings and give viewers info as to what is actually in the movie.

I did not take them to see Saw they saw the first one here at my home on BD and then borrowed the other 6. Have you even seen any of them, my guess the answer is probably not since you tend to think there is something so wrong with them. And I did not argue that anything should be more restrictive. Personally I think in some areas we (as a society) are too restrictive, while in others not nearly enough, but that is immaterial. I just believe that there should be higher restrictions in public than there should be in private. I know my nephews and what they can handle and I correctly guessed that they could handle Saw which they enjoyed. On the other hand I would not trust that pimply faced kid at the ticket counter to know what they can handle and I don't have an issue if it is a bit more conservative since it is better safe and sorry.

[ScarredLungs]

Originally Posted by Beerserker

Yes, yes everything is subjective.

The more I think about it, that this is not correct in this discussion. There should be nothing subjective at all. This thread was not created to discuss how the MPAA should enact or push morals, but rather, how to modify the system so it can be of use to parents.

**NEW IDEA**

Under each rating there could be a few items:

1. Nudity
2. Sexual Content
3. Graphic Sexual Content
4. Strong Language
5. Violence
6. Graphic Violence
7. Blood and Gore
8. Thematic Elements
9. Crude Humor

They already put a few under the rating, but they have so many that they loose meaning. Things like Quirky Situations, Mild Peril, Fantasy Action (how does this influence the rating?), etc. The list goes on.

Here is why it is not subjective. Using swearing as an example. Every society deems some words as swear words. So, a movie with a lot of swearing has "Strong Language". Parents could then look it up, at a centrally located site and see the actually content of "Strong Language". One parent may be totally fine with their kids seeing it and others not so much. You could also use Nudity as an example. Saying this film has Nudity is not subjective. It is a fact. You go look up the movie and it is non sexual in nature i.e. "national geographic tribal stuff". At that point the content becomes subjective to each parent and they can decide from there.

Basically I think if we scrap the current system and add a few labels (as i listed above as ideas), and create a central site for exact details, it would work. Parents would be happy since they can find content and studios would be happy since they would not feel as restricted by ratings.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by cvm

Nope, never did either of those.

but isn't Utah a bit odd in that respect. If I remember correctly last time I was there, restaurants could only sell watered down beer that was undrinkable and anything else you needed to be a member to get in.

I understand what you are saying and that is a good point. I would be happy with something that simple, as long as there was a detailed place online that I could find the "content" information. No matter what rating is in use, it will be considered subjective. Everyone has different ideas/beliefs/morals and that is fine. The rating system should not push one set of beliefs more then another, that is not it's job. Its job is to inform about movie content. I like keeping it simple. By having the content available, (online per se) anyone one would be able to make informed decisions if they deem the content appropriate for their kids.

agree. I never said there should not be something more that is available on-line. But in the end anything but a good synopsis that deals with what you care about won't really tell you much about the film. But I also don't think everyone has the time to research every film completely, so you need an easy system that can be with the film (be it film poster, ticket counter, BD, DVD...) and that is what I thought we were discussing. Here it consists of the rating (like the ones I posted earlier) and maybe a few lines dealing with content like on the back jacket of the Matador BD http://img600.imageshack.us/img600/4...nadabluray.jpg (that is the Canadian rating)

[ScarredLungs]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

but isn't Utah a bit odd in that respect. If I remember correctly last time I was there, restaurants could only sell watered down beer that was undrinkable and anything else you needed to be a member to get in.

I just moved to Utah. I grew up in California.

Originally Posted by Anthony P

agree. I never said there should not be something more that is available on-line. But in the end anything but a good synopsis that deals with what you care about won't really tell you much about the film. But I also don't think everyone has the time to research every film completely, so you need an easy system that can be with the film (be it film poster, ticket counter, BD, DVD...) and that is what I thought we were discussing. Here it consists of the rating (like the ones I posted earlier) and maybe a few lines dealing with content like on the back jacket of the Matador BD http://img600.imageshack.us/img600/4...nadabluray.jpg (that is the Canadian rating)

It does not take time do research the rating. It would only take another 90 seconds after checking a movie time online.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by cvm

The more I think about it, that this is not correct in this discussion. There should be nothing subjective at all. This thread was not created to discuss how the MPAA should enact or push morals, but rather, how to modify the system so it can be of use to parents.

but it i9s always subjective. Let me ask you a simple question, there is a movie and through the whole movie a guy is not wearing a shirt, is that nudity? then why would a different movie with a girl not wearing a shirt for a second contain nudity. They are both equally nude, but subjectively we think of the topless girl as being naked while not the guy.

**NEW IDEA**

Under each rating there could be a few items:

1. Nudity
2. Sexual Content
3. Graphic Sexual Content
4. Strong Language
5. Violence
6. Graphic Violence
7. Blood and Gore
8. Thematic Elements
9. Crude Humor

They already put a few under the rating, but they have so many that they loose meaning. Things like Quirky Situations, Mild Peril, Fantasy Action (how does this influence the rating?), etc. The list goes on.

but that is it, and my main beef, the same is here (like the example showed above) but in the end people want something simple and I think having to read so much will mean most people will skip it and ask "what is the difference between violence and graphic violence" just as much as you asking who care s about Fantasy action.

Here is why it is not subjective. Using swearing as an example. Every society deems some words as swear words. So, a movie with a lot of swearing has "Strong Language".

but that is still subjective. Like I asked Beerserker, how many damns = one Mother F..... I look at the back of Matador and it says "coarse language" and honestly I have no idea what it means.

Parents could then look it up, at a centrally located site and see the actually content of "Strong Language". One parent may be totally fine with their kids seeing it and others not so much. You could also use Nudity as an example. Saying this film has Nudity is not subjective. It is a fact. You go look up the movie and it is non sexual in nature i.e. "national geographic tribal stuff". At that point the content becomes subjective to each parent and they can decide from there.

but you are assuming people have nothing better to do than go to your on-line place, if everyone did that for every film why would you need ratings at all? when I go to buy films (BDs at the store), if it is a film I want I get it, but other films I check the front pic and the back cover before deciding I don't feal like going to CVMs rating site where there is a full breakdown of damn was said 22 times, b!tch was said 10 times f@ck 22 times when I click on vulgar language and if I click on nudity there is 10 breast shots, 3 ass shots...

Basically I think if we scrap the current system and add a few labels (as i listed above as ideas), and create a central site for exact details, it would work. Parents would be happy since they can find content and studios would be happy since they would not feel as restricted by ratings.

I disagree, I think parents want ratings, it becomes an easy "no it is X and you are only Y" also you are missing something obvious, like I pointed out earlier, once someone is pre-teen they tend to go to films by themselves, even though ratings are ineffective (sneak into a different film) at the end of the day it helps them feel better.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by cvm

It does not take time do research the rating. It would only take another 90 seconds after checking a movie time online.

maybe but if you need to go through a list of bad words and a list of nudity and a list of violence and gore and.... my guess it might take a bit longer than that but evgen if we assume 90 seconds ratings are for more than just theatrical presentations and so there is no reason to go on-line if someone is buying or renting a film at a B&M location or Kiosk.

The issue is that what you want already exists there are many different "parenting" sites that give more info.

[ScarredLungs]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

The issue is that what you want already exists there are many different "parenting" sites that give more info.

This comes around to my original question. These sites have been created since the rating system is broken. It can not longer be used effective source to judge content. You have made some good points which I can not answer since

I disagree, I think parents want ratings, it becomes an easy "no it is X and you are only Y" also you are missing something obvious, like I pointed out earlier, once someone is pre-teen they tend to go to films by themselves, even though ratings are ineffective (sneak into a different film) at the end of the day it helps them feel better.

I think parents want a rating system that actually works.

Here is a key problem with the current rating system:

- A motion picture’s single use of one of the harsher sexually-derived words, though only as an expletive, initially requires at least a PG-13 rating. More than one such expletive requires an R rating, as must even one of those words used in a sexual context. The Rating Board nevertheless may rate such a motion picture PG-13 if, based on a special vote by a two-thirds majority

http://www.filmratings.com/filmRatin...ting_rules.pdf

They should not be allowed to vote and change the rating. You and me and everyone on this site probable has different views. These people on the board, can allow their personal views to change a rating system by voting. Since it is not always the same group who do every movie, it is quite conceivable that, with a different group, Kings Speech (a great movie I might add), could have voted to change it to PG-13, despite guidelines. I don't care what the system is, I just want clarity and consistency.

[wormraper]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

yeah, we all have done that (buy a fake ticket because we could not get into the film we wanted the same way I am sure we all had fake IDs to get booz).

Also an R rating does not restrict a film for a kid with a parent present that would be the higher NC-17 rating. That is why I asked when was the last time you went with a parent. Should a 7 year old be there with his parent? I don't think so but a 16 year old probably won't go see it with a parent but might try with some other adult (older sibling/friend)



But you miss the point, as a kid did you really care if it was R or G or anything else (except for possibly ,making it hard for you to see it)? my guess is no. If it was a film you wanted to see you just saw it, the ratings are there so that the parents can have some idea of what their kid is supposedly going to see and if it is appropriate for them. And the reason it exists as is in the US is that the industry decided to self-regulate and be proactive. If theatre operators en-mass said "screw ratings we will let anyone in" or the MPAA would not have come up with them at all, those parents that convinced the theatre owners and MPAA that they should have ratings would have probably forced the government into passing a law for it.

So I don't see a difference between self-regulating (like in the US) and a law (like here in Quebec).

that's MY point. I think it needs to be UN regulated

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by cvm

This comes around to my original question. These sites have been created since the rating system is broken. It can not longer be used effective source to judge content.

Yes and no, if it was as simple as “it is broken” there would only be one site. The reason there are so many is why I don’t think your idea can work. People that tried the existing sites decided that those sites “do not represent what I think” and started a new one.

I hope no one takes this the wrong way, but a zealous Muslim might not want their kids watching films where people are enjoying a drink or are sitting in a bar, a Hindu/Vegan might not feel they want their kid watching a film where someone is eating meat, an Atheist might decide they don’t like something with religious overtones, and a Christian a film that makes fun of Christian beliefs. Disney released song of the south on DVD in Europe, but decided some African Americans might see it as racist and so they did not release it here and don’t have plans to ever do so. I am sure an African/Amazonian tribe and people used to topless beaches might feel different about a boob on the screen than people that grew up surrounded by Burkas or Niqabs. There is this guy on an other site that won’t watch any film with a remote “environmental” theme because it is all a massive conspiracy.

They should not be allowed to vote and change the rating. You and me and everyone on this site probable has different views. These people on the board, can allow their personal views to change a rating system by voting. Since it is not always the same group who do every movie, it is quite conceivable that, with a different group, Kings Speech (a great movie I might add), could have voted to change it to PG-13, despite guidelines. I don't care what the system is, I just want clarity and consistency.

Agree, except that I think rating something is extremely difficult and society changes. So ratings have to evolve with the times. I would not expect a woman bathing in something other than to be judged harshly because that was as much flesh as a respectable woman could shown in public when film began, or for all bedroom scenes to have separated twin beds because some time ago it was considered too suggestive to show parents in the same bed together in a TV show/film.

You also missed one important thing in your quote

the Raters feel that most American parents would believe that a PG-13 rating is appropriate because of the context or manner in which the words are used or because the use of those words in the motion picture is inconspicuous

Plus my understanding, from the way that it is written, is that it needs a 67% of the rating board to agree that it is PG-13 and not just the raters of that film.

[PhysicalMediaMaestro]

Originally Posted by ScarredLungs

Proof does not change the mindset. People know smoking is unhealthy, yet millions still do and many start each year. There have been uproars. Most often I've heard people just respond with some sort of "stop pushing a religious agenda" etc. You do not need to be religious to care what your children are exposed too.

Studies that show violence/sex can have damaging effect for you reference. A quick Google search yields quite a few studies. I am not posting these to say violent movies should be banned, but more so, to show that research has been conducted to show that viewing violence and sex have negative impacts on children.

UCLA Study - 2007
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0608141206.htm

SCHILLER INSTITUTE - 2002
http://www.schillerinstitute.org/new...eos_brain.html

American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry - 2011
https://www.aacap.org//page.ww?name=...s for Families

Dr. Jeremy F. Shapiro - 2008
https://www.dailystrength.org:443/he...n-our-children

Parents Television Council - (unknown date)
https://www.parentstv.org/ptc/facts/mediafacts.asp

Rand - 2004
https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_b...68/index1.html

This is why we need a new rating system. Parents need to be able to make informed decisions on what their children are being exposed too.

Thank you for sharing these articles. A lot of people don't know about these studies. Worse, those who know about those studies don't always believe them. Even worse, some may see the negative effects of certain forms of media as positives. While researchers see desensitization to violence as a bad thing, many people see that as a good thing. If you're desensitized, it's means you're a tough person, you never get rattled, and you never lose your composure.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by PhysicalMediaMaestro

Thank you for sharing these articles. A lot of people don't know about these studies. Worse, those who know about those studies don't always believe them. Even worse, some may see the negative effects of certain forms of media as positives. While researchers see desensitization to violence as a bad thing, many people see that as a good thing. If you're desensitized, it's means you're a tough person, you never get rattled, and you never lose your composure.

You are replying to a 13 year-old post.